We reproduce below, word-for-word, letters we received from and sent to Tanya Metaksa, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association- Institute for Legislative Action, and Neal Knox, an NRA Director. We have tried hard toget the NRA to see the light: that "gun control" is a lethal policy with which no compromise is possible.

These letters are reproduced exactly as received and sent. All text in bold, italics, or underlined was so in the original, as are the formats. Necessary explanatory notes are enclosed by braces {} to show that the words enclosed did not appear in the actual text.

We print Ms. Metaksa's letters, because we promised her we would do so. These letters show her great skill at evading the hard issues we raised. She does not answer our core question which is, Why won't - or hasn't -the NRA used JPFO research to attack the idea that "gun control"is a useful public policy.

Neal Knox, by contrast, faces the question. His initial response: a non-Jew who points out that "gun control" clears the way for genocide, will not be taken seriously. We pointed out that most victims of genocides in this century have not been Jews. Mr. Knox then pointed out that he had written about the linkage between "gun control"and genocide over 30 years ago. He even used this insight to de-rail an especially nasty "gun control" law in Illinois, some 15 years ago. After that success, he did not persist. He now seems inclined to take a new look at using the linkage between "gun control" and genocide.

Thus, in this exchange of letters, we made some progress. Tanya Metaksa seems unwilling to apply what for her is a new idea. Neal Knox seems willing to re-visit an idea he had about 30 years ago, which idea JPFO's research has since shown to have been well-founded. We hope he does so. Soon and Loudly.

Our Correspondence with Tanya Metaksa

Ms. Metaksa's first letter, of 1 December 1995, responded to an article in the Fall/Winter Firearms Sentinel:

One of my staff received a copy of your Fall/Winter 1995 Firearms Sentinel, in which you lambasted me for my speech at the Gun Rights Policy Conference.

Since your letter indicates that you didn't have a chance to attend my speech but were relying on reports from others, I'm enclosing a copy of my speech. As you'll see, I didn't denounce JPFO or suggest that your research isn't useful.

To the contrary, I said I consider you colleagues in this cause, and urged you to continue to conduct and advocate your unique research. I did suggest that the way to promote your efforts it not my making personal attacks against those who don't immediately begin to use your materials, suggesting that they are self-interested or lax defenders of the right to bear arms, or coddlers of those you call Nazi sympathizers (As I said in my letter to you this summer, since I was the person who started the movement to get rid of Senator Dodd at a time when the NRA was unwilling to do so, I think my actions speak for themselves on that score.)

The whole point of my speech was that all gun owners' groups should take pains to win Americans' hearts and minds, not only with what we say, but with how we say it. I feel very strongly that that point bears repeating,and I've repeated it in a number of other speeches to grassroots groups around the country.

I trust this will clear the air between us and our respective organizations; if I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to write or call.

Sincerely,

Tanya K. Metaksa Executive Director TKM/jcf

P.S. I hope you will print this letter for all your members. {Note:this line was hand-written, apparently by Ms. Metaksa; emphasis in original}.

JPFO'S Commentary

It is interesting that Ms. Metaksa disagreed with the NRA leadership regarding the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. It would be even more interesting to know in detail - preferably on the basis of documentary evidence - why the NRA then still supported him, and what, if anything, the NRA did once it realized that Ms. Metaksa was correct. JPFO's reply follows. We think it speaks for itself.

May this find you well. I hope the Holidays have passed pleasantly for you and yours. I refer to your letter of 1 December.

The core issue is not your personal feelings about our research. The core issues are the NRA's failure to follow-up on JPFO's research finding by drawing attention to our findings that:

GCA '68 apparently was based on the Nazi Weapons Law of 18 March1938;

"gun control" is a necessary pre-condition to genocide.

We are not now concerned whether or not the NRA chooses to give credit to JPFO for this research. If the NRA uses our research to destroy "guncontrol", that is reward enough for JPFO's members.

The NRA's failure to use JPFO's research to destroy "gun control" leads us to ask whether, or not, you have specific reason to think that we are wrong on either, or both, of these points. For example, if you have evidence - or hard proof - that GCA '68 was not based on the Nazi Weapons law, please share this with us, in full technical detail. "Full technical detail" means citations of published documents, whether Congressional testimony/reports, letters, books, newspaper articles, etc.

JPFO has never said it has hard proof of the Nazi origins of GCA '68,only that we had documentary evidence. Similarly, if you specifically know that we are wrong to conclude that "gun control" clears the way for genocide, tell us so and tell us why, in full technical detail.

Among JPFO's strong points are making new and effective weapons to destroy"gun control", and dealing with "gun control" backers who happen to be Jewish. Some think "genocide" is an exclusively"Jewish" issue. Wrong. Genocide touches all Americans. U.S. troops might not be in harm's way in Bosnia were it not for ex-Yugoslavia's "gun control" law of 1965, which made the Bosnians unable to defend themselves. We have the original text and a full translation.

We think the NRA's strong point is its ability to bring our research to bear at "gun control" weak points. For example, to the comment, If even one life is saved, "gun control" is helpful, the NRAcould reply, Not only do Americans daily use firearms in self-defense against criminals, but in the wider world, "gun control" has cleared the way for several genocides, in which tens of millions have been murdered.

You recently had, and apparently wasted, an excellent chance to hit hard at an organization that backs "gun control". The 25 December issue of U.S. News and World Report reported your comments on a U.N. program to promote gun control. If you were quoted accurately, your comment that the U.N. would lose credibility among NRA members is simply inane. Does anyone at the U.N. care what NRA members think about the U.N.? You might have said: The NRA has hard proof that "gun control" clears the way for genocide. For the U.N. to support "gun control" is a criminal act which will help to clear the way for tens of millions of murders.

The NRA's refusal to use JPFO research - in the context of steady progress towards comprehensive "gun control" in America - and the lack of a meaningful explanation of the NRA's refusal to do so, make me question whether the NRA cares about working with other groups.

I appreciate your sending the text of your speech. As you said, I did rely on reports from others: there was neither a printed text nor any recording of your talk. Regardless of the words you used, several of those in the audience reached the conclusion that I reported.

I look forward to your comments. Meanwhile, keep well.

Yours for Liberty,

Aaron Zelman Executive Director

JPFO's Commentary

While Ms. Metaksa was commendably prompt to reply, she avoids the main issue: the NRA's refusal to use JPFO research showing the links between:

GCA 68 and the Nazi Weapons Law (18 March 1938)

"gun control" and genocide.

We are shocked by Ms. Metaksa's use of the term details to describe major JPFO research results. How can anyone describe as a matter of detail the tens of millions murdered thanks to "gun control"?

Ms. Metaksa apparently feels JPFO is convinced the NRA won't use JPFO research for fear that research and its conclusions are flawed. We do not know why the NRA has not used our research. In our letter above, we simply asked if the NRA thought there were serious flaws in our work, and, if so, to show us those flaws. Thus, Ms. Metaksa wrongly assumes we know why the NRA won't use JPFO research to destroy "gun control". We do not know why the NRA won't use our research. We do want to know why. That's why we wrote to Ms. Metaksa. We hoped Ms. Metaksa would tell us.

Finally, while Ms. Metaksa says that, gun owners' groups such as ours must strive to reinforce each other's efforts, rather than to attack each other's competence or commitment, she offers no plans for such cooperation to JPFO.

Thank you for your letter of January 9, which several people also forwarded to me via the Internet. I hope your holidays were pleasant as well, and I wish you a happy new year.

You raise a number of points concerning what you perceive as the failure of the NRA, or refusal by NRA, to use your research, which I believe my previous letter addressed. To reiterate briefly, I stated in that letter that NRA had never attacked your research, nor have we even hinted (as you most recent letter implies) that your conclusions are inaccurate. That is why I cannot answer your demand that we provide full technical detail as to why we know that [JPFO is] wrong. I cannot prove a charge that we have never made.

Beyond that, you suggest that since we haven't seen eye to eye on every detail of our efforts, you must question whether the NRA cares about working with other groups. On the contrary, the NRA very much wants to work with other groups; we work with other groups daily; and we would not have been so successful in the last year if we had not worked with other groups. As I said to you in my December 1 letter, gun owners' groups such as ours must strive to reinforce each other's efforts, rather than to attack each other's competence or commitment.

Finally, as I said in December, I hope you will publish both of my replies to you, so that your members can judge this issue for themselves.

May this find you well. I refer to your letter of 9 January. Aaron Zelman asked me to reply to you, because I am JPFO's Research Director.

Thank you for confirming that the NRA does not think JPFO's research is inaccurate or wrong. I also appreciate that the NRA does want to work with other groups.

So, please tell me why the NRA has not actively tried to use JPFO's research findings - i.e., that GCA 68 appears to be rooted in the Nazi Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 and that "gun control" has cleared the way for seven major genocides to attack the idea that "gun control", in any form, is a good policy, in the U.S. or elsewhere.

The NRA's failure actively to use JPFO research findings is deeply worrying, given the steady progress towards comprehensive "gun control" in America. For example, on 10 January 1996 New Jersey Governor Whitman signed a very severe law regulating firearms sales in New Jersey (Gun Week, 1 Feb 1996, p. 1).

Longer-term trends are even more disturbing. Department of Justice Bureauof Justice Statistics (BJS) data show that in the past 20 years, public support for "gun control" actually has increased. In 1974, 75% of poll respondents supported a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit before he or she could buy a gun. In 1984, 70% favored this proposition. In 1994, 78% favored it. Many Americans plainly do not see the danger of "gun control".

The battle for public support is being lost. This is all the more worrying given the NRA's outlays of tens of millions - possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. Existing methods may slow "gun control"'s advance.But those methods cannot recover lost ground. Thus, if the NRA actually wants to uproot "gun control" from America, new ideas are needed. JPFO assuredly has no monopoly over those ideas. But we have many new ideas. The NRA has much to gain - and on present trends nothing to lose - by curing itself of the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome.

The ball is in your court. If the NRA continues as it has done, "gun control" triumphs. This may take time and "gun control" may suffer a few, minor reverses. "Gun control" may be likened to an aggressively malignant cancer. There may be periods of remission. However, in the end, the cancer triumphs. No one treats such a disease with aspirin. Stronger methods are needed.

That is why we urge the NRA to seek new ideas that can be used to destroy the "gun control" cancer. Time is short. If the NRA truly wants to destroy gun control, the NRA should use some of JPFO's research findings to launch a counter-offensive. I look forward to receiving your specific ideas on how we may cooperate.

Be assured that our letters, and your responses, will be published verbatim in the April edition of The Firearms Sentinel. Meanwhile, keep well.

Yours faithfully, Jay Edward Simkin

Correspondence with Neal Knox, NRA Director

JPFO has also exchanged letters with Neal Knox, at the NRA, and Director of the Firearms Coalition.

May this find you well. I hope the Holidays have passed pleasantly for you and yours. I refer to your letter of 20 December to D.I. Sill (of Monroe, Iowa), a copy of which you mailed to me.

We may have misunderstood each other?s body language, but I had the distinct impression that you did not want to speak with me. In any case, my conclusions about Tanya Metaksa?s speech were reached only after several persons came up to me and commented at the harsh language with which she referred to JPFO, Inc.

I am aware, and did and do appreciate, your 20 November 1992 ShotgunNews column on Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny. In that column, and in your letter, you are quite explicit that some arguments can best be made by Jews, while others can best be made by Gentiles. This is true only in one narrow respect. If JPFO criticizes a Jewish person or group for supporting gun control, JPFO cannot realistically be accused of being anti-Semitic.

Apart from that, our research - especially our finding that "gun control" clears the way for genocide - can be used by anyone. It is generally accepted as a fact that the Nazis murdered more Gentiles than Jews, and that Gentiles were the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in the effort to destroy the Nazi regime.

Similarly, of the 56 million persons our research shows were victimsof 7 major genocides in this century, some 50 million were not Jewish. Neither you, nor the NRA, have so far been willing to make the case to the broad audience that you best can reach, that the down-side to "gun control" is not inconvenience to firearm-owners, but literally mountains of corpses.

Even as I write to you, U.S. troops are entering Bosnia in the wake of what seems to be a small-scale genocide there. Yugoslavia has had "gun control" at least since 1965. U.S. troops were also briefly in Rwandain 1994; Rwanda has had "gun control" at least since the League of Nations asked Belgium to administer Rwanda in 1924. Rwanda's most recent "gun control" enactment dates from 21 November 1964.

In sum, plenty of Americans died to overthrow the Nazi regime and U.S.troops have recently had to go in harm?s way in the wake of large-scale murders in the Balkans and Central Africa, which murders plainly were facilitated by gun control.

Do you actually think that our fellow Americans know that "gun control" not only cleared the way for these two recent genocides, but also led to the sending of U.S. troops to Bosnia and Rwanda? By pointing this out, not once but dozens of times, you and the NRA could deal a body blow to the idea that "gun control" is worthwhile. As I recently said in a letter to Tanya Metaksa, the NRA need not give credit to JPFO for our work, if giving such credit is, for whatever reason, temporarily inconvenient. We are interested only in destroying "gun control". If you and/or the NRA can best destroy "gun control" using some of the tools we have made, that's fine with us.

In sum, we want to work with the NRA, but we reject - absolutely - any efforts to confine our work to the Jewish community, in America or globally. The presence of Nazi law in America - and the increasing frequency of genocide- concern every right-thinking American. I hope you agree.

I look forward to your comments.

Yours sincerely,

Aaron Zelman Executive Director

JPFO's Commentary on Neal Knox' Reply

Mr. Knox' reply is useful. He concedes that the link between "gun control" and genocide is not a Jewish issue. That is encouraging. We know that anyone, Jew or Gentile, who makes this point, may be greeted with skepticism. It has happened to us. But we have silenced our critics by producing the hard evidence: page-after-page of "gun control" laws in force in countries where in major genocides occurred.

It is worth noting, though, that Mr. Knox offers no evidence to show when, how, and on whom he tested the concept. Indeed, in his most recent letter to us, see below, he reports in great detail that he showed the linkage between gun control and vicious repression in Communist-run Poland in 1981, and won much general media attention. Plainly, he thought the idea was sound 15 years ago.

So, why not now, when there have recently been two major genocides (Rwanda, in Central Africa, April-June 1994, and Bosnia, 1990-present)?

Your letter of January 9 arrived just after I left for the SHOT show. Upon returning I had the week-long NRA Winter Board and committee meetings, then finally got my newsletter out Monday. In short, although I knew your certified, return receipt letter had arrived, I didn't find time to read it until yesterday.

First, let me assure you that I have never thought that you and JPFO should confine your work to the Jewish community. But let me assure you that a Gentile is ignored, scoffed at, and/or accused of anti-semitism, for suggesting that the Holocaust was made possible by gun control. (Ihave heard Charles Schumer brand it a ludicrous joke). You can say it, but NRA or I can't; though you can also say it to non-Jews with more credibility than NRA or I.

However, I resent the implication by you and others in JPFO that I refuse to consider the fact that gun control made the Holocaust possible. While a newspaper reported in the mid-1960s I took a college course in Totalitarian Government, taught by a North Korean, which declared that six things are required for such an oppressive government like Hitler's or Stalin's. They include total control of the press, and total control of firearms. I have since made that same point countless times, beginning in the first issues of Gun Week 30 years ago, which was long before JPFO was founded, or you were involved in this movement.

I particularly resent your published statement: NRA ignores JPFO's research because the NRA wants to keep gun control alive. That is an outrageous insult, slanderous and libelous.

I and, independently, Tanya Metaksa of NRA-ILA have decided (on the basis of testing) that your research is not as useful as you think it is; you disagree, which is your right. But you have no right to impugn our motives for disagreeing with you. While I agree with most of the points in your letter, including the fact that genocide is made possible by gun laws, I remain unconvinced that by using the theme the NRA could deal a body blow to the idea that gun control is not worthwhile. I have used that theme, and when your research became available, I cited it; it didn't work.

In recent years you have also used that theme, and I recall having seen some articles in the general press which stated that to be your argument. Has there been a single editorial writer or statement from any politician who was not already on our side that, By golly, you're right. If so, I haven?t seen it. If you have had such success with the opposition, or even the uncommitted, and can document it, I will be more than willing to reconsider my position about using your research.

I have not the slightest hesitation about giving JPFO the credit for your research, though not the concept, which I first heard from Dr. J.S.Moon (who was, strangely enough, an advocate of restrictive gun laws; so he was not persuaded by his own, now your, argument). It does neither of us any good, nor the movement, to impugn the motives of fellow tillers in the vineyard. I hope it goes no further.

Yours for the Second Amendment, Neal Knox

JPFO's Commentary and Reply

JPFO's reply was aimed at getting some hard facts to back up Mr. Knox'assertions.

May this find you well. I refer to your letter of 8 February. You raise several interesting points. First, we would not be guided by U.S. Rep.Charles Schumer's opinions on what is - or is not - a valid point when it comes to "gun control". JPFO seeks to change the terms of the debate. Thus, we refuse to let an adversary set the terms of the debate. Those on our side who persist in letting committed gun control supporters set the terms of the debate subvert efforts to restore our Second Amendment civil right to be armed.

You seem not to recognize the importance of the fact that the Nazis murdered more Gentiles than they did Jews. Those who scoff at a Gentile, who shows the connection between "gun control" and the Nazi genocide, need to be educated. Ignorance is an educational opportunity, not an excuse for inaction.

Second, we do not claim to have found the link between "gun control"and genocide. NRA Board Member Dave Caplan wrote about this in 1991. JPFO is, however, the first rigorously to have proved it by finding and publishing the relevant "gun control" laws. Thirty years ago - in 1966 -there was much less evidence for this linkage: the Cambodian and Ugandan genocides had not occurred; Guatemala's genocide and the final act of Mao's genocide in China had just begun; and the Stalin genocide's true scope was still unknown. Thus, no one in the late 1960s can be faulted for not having seen the link between gun control and genocide. Thirty years later- in 1996 - there is a mountain of evidence showing that "gun control" clears the way for genocide. Failure to publicize this linkage is worse than negligent. It is culpable.

Third, I am curious to know, in detail, how and where you used the theme that "gun control" clears the way for genocide, and yet met with no success. Before what group did you do this? When? Where? What did you say? What was the response? Please help me with this.

You are right to point out that JPFO, Inc., has yet to win over any politicians. For good reason: we don't lobby, as we are a 501(c)(3). As a relatively new group - and a small one - we lack strong ties to the general press. Thus, we focus on developing new insights into "gun control" and on putting those ideas into the hands of those who have such strong ties.

Our feeling that the NRA is partial to "gun control" derives from the absence of NRA attacks on the basic concept of "gun control". Rather, the NRA seeks ways to make "gun control" bearable. For example, the NRA endorses a universal instant check prior to a firearms purchase. This system is deeply dangerous: applicants' personal data is easily captured. This is the raw material for a firearms registration system. Even if the data are not being kept now, that change is easy to make at a later date, perhaps in response to some incident.

Why is the NRA helping to build the foundations for firearms registration? The concept of universal instant check defies obvious truths. There are about 220 million firearms in America, but relatively few violent criminals. No criminal need buy a firearm lawfully; a stolen firearm will do just fine. The lethal risks of firearms registration far outweigh the small inconvenience to criminals resulting from instant check. The enormous supply-demand imbalance for firearms makes instant check dangerous nonsense.

In sum, the NRA's failure to attack "gun control" as a lethal concept worries me. If the NRA fought to undermine "gun control"as a concept and as a practice, we would be quite content, whether or not JPFO's ideas were used. JPFO claims no monopoly on truth, wisdom, or insight. JPFO does claim to have proved the unique lethality of "gun control", and thus to have forged a weapon against "gun control" both as a concept and as a public policy, anywhere.

The NRA's comfort with "gun control" is as lethally stupid as was some Jews belief that they could deal with the Nazis. Do what is best for America and its law-abiding inhabitants. Turn away from seeking accommodation with "gun control". Soon. While there is yet time.

Yours faithfully, Jay Edward Simkin

Neal Knox' Reply and JPFO's Commentary

Mr. Knox' rejoinder, received on 8 April, shows that Neal Knox understands the linkage between "gun control" and genocide;

understood this linkage decades ago

actually put this linkage before the general public and de-railed aneffort to impose a viciously oppressive "gun control" law (inIllinois, in1981);

did not persist with efforts to make everyone see this linkage

is willing to try again to educate Americans that the real down-side to "gun control" is genocide, perhaps using some JPFO research findings.

We think an idea Neal Knox pioneered over 30 years ago - and which JPFO has since rigorously proved - was effective when given to the general publicin 1981. We welcome Neal Knox' plan again to point out that "gun control" clears the way for great evil, especially genocide. Our joint efforts will be even more effective in the 1990s, coming as they do after two recent genocides, Rwanda (Central Africa, April-June 1994) and Bosnia (1990-present).

This letter was set aside last month when we suddenly had to deal with the anti-terrorism bill, then the repeal. {by the House of Representatives,of the 1994 ban on the new production for sale to the general public of military-type firearms} I couldn't begin to take the time to research how far back I referred to "gun control" as a necessary predicate to genocide; I doubt I even still possess copies of the first references, which probably appeared in the Wichita Falls Record News, but certainlyappeared in Gun Week, which I started in 1966.

In 1955, at Ft. Sill, Okla., a first-hand witness told me of seeing his playmates and their parents shot down on their square in Belgium because the father couldn't produce a registered World War I souvenir pistol. That was my conversion on the road to Damascus, you'll excuse the expression.

That fall, when I completed the Army school, I went back to Abilene, Texas, and told the president of my sportsmen's club that I want to be on the legislative committee; he said: We don't have one; you're now the chairman.

Circa 1964 I took a course in Totalitarian Government from a North Korean professor, who made the point that a totalitarian system of government, one which systematically destroyed millions of people, as Hitler and Stalin did, could not exist without an ideology, total control of the press, and total control of the guns. I have pirated those thoughts many times since. You undoubtedly have a copy of Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment from the December 1989 Yale Law Journal. Note the footnote on Page 657,citing my July 20, 1989 letter to the Washington Post: Could the Holocaust have occurred if Europe's Jews had owned thousands of then-modern militaryMauser bolt action rifles? I am sending a copy of the entire letter.

In the same vein, I am sending a copy of my Tiananmen Lesson, which appeared in the September 1989 Guns & Ammo. And The Second Amendment-- Our Freedom Guarantee, from the Feb., 1988 G&A. {Guns and Ammo} I would wager that I addressed the idea of personal firearms protecting the people from tyranny in my first G&A article, in the July and July 1966 issues. That two-part article was, I believe, the first published footnoted study on the failures and reasons to fear gun laws. If you research has shown an earlier one, I would appreciate a reference.

Somewhere in my old, stored files is a copy of the Open Letter NRA-ILA ad which I wrote in December 1981, when Gen. Jaruzelski declared martial law in Poland, and cancelled all firearms permits, ordering the guns to be immediately turned in. (Some of the turned-in guns, we later learned, were subsequently issued to Communist Party functionaries.) The ad pointed out that the reasonable licensing laws that the NRA was opposing in this country were precisely the same kinds of laws that were being used to stop the Solidarity movement and to repress freedom.

The ad initially ran in two or three medium-sized newspapers in heavily Polish areas around the country, and I think Skokie, Ill. which was pushing a Morton Grove-type law. {Morton Grove, Illinois banned most private ownership of firearms; Skokie did not enact such a law -the editors.} The press came uncorked, quoting my major points in news stories and scoffing at my conclusions-- greatly amplifying the impact of the ads. So I spent some heavy money to run my Open Letter as full page ads in the Chicago Sun-Times, L.A. Times and New York Times. That triggered an even greater blast, including on television news.

What concerns me is your notion that the present NRA leadership, or that I, fail to recognize the inherent evil of "gun control". I assure you that I and we most assuredly do. But we cannot repeal history; we can only do all within our power to prevent a repetition of the mistakes of the past. If you research hasn't shown you just how deeply, and for how long, I have worried about the impact of gun control, and the evils it allows, then I am not writing enough in that vein. I will do more, but I will use the approach that seems most effective to me. I realize that you are disappointed that I feel you and JPFO can do more with the genocide argument than I can. But please refrain from assuming my failure to extensively use your material means that I do not believe your research, or do not find it useful. And never, ever believe that I do not understand that gun control can lead to genocide. I was talking and writing about that critical subject when some of my critics were still in diapers.

Yours for the Second Amendment, Neal Knox

JPFO'S Reply

We think Neal Knox will resume drawing attention to the massive evil that gun control promotes. We wonder if there is any evil greater than genocide. In any case, we stand ready to help him in any way we can to make the point that the down-side to "gun control" is not inconvenience to firearm-owners or even murders committed by common criminals, but something infinitely worse.

May this find you well. I refer to your letter of 8 April. Thank you for your comprehensive response. I was delighted to learn of your successful efforts in 1981 to publicize the link between "gun control" the vicious repression in then-Communist-run Poland. I personally benefited from your efforts in Chicagoland. I moved into Skokie, Illinois in 1988. I was able to do so because Skokie, unlike its next-door neighbor Mor(t)onGrove, had not banned handguns. Having enjoyed such success, why did you stop? It is good to hear that you will pick up where you left-off in 1981 and that you will draw attention to the immense evil that "gun control"promotes. I would, however, like to know what evil promoted by "gun control" exceeds genocide. Indeed, is there any greater evil than genocide? If so, what is it? We are willing to help you in any way possible. Let us know how we can help.